Abstract
Background COVID-19 vaccines have been the central pillar of the public health response to the pandemic, intended to enable us to ‘live with Covid’. It is important to understand COVID-19 vaccines attitudes and decisions in order to maximise uptake through an empathetic lens.
Objective To explore the factors that influenced people’s COVID-19 vaccines decisions and how attitudes towards the vaccines had changed in an eventful year.
Design and participants This is a follow up study that took place in Bradford, UK one year after the original study, between October 2021 and January 2022. In-depth phone interviews were conducted with 12 (of the 20 originally interviewed) people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.
Results 11 of the 12 participants interviewed had received both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and most intended to have a booster dose. Participants described a variety of reasons why they had decided to have the vaccines, including: feeling at increased risk at work; protecting family and others in their communities, unrestricted travel and being influenced by the vaccine decisions of family, friends and colleagues. All participants discussed ongoing interaction with COVID-19 misinformation and for some this meant they were uneasy about their decision to have the vaccine. They described feeling overloaded by and disengaged from COVID-19 information, which they often found contradictory and some felt mistrustful of the UK government’s motives and decisions during the pandemic.
Conclusions The majority of participants had managed to navigate an overwhelming amount of circulating COVID-19 misinformation and chosen to have two or more COVID-19 vaccines, even if they had been previously said they were unsure. However, these decisions were complicated, and demonstrate the continuum of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. This follow up study underlines that vaccine attitudes are changeable and contextual.
Patient or Public Contribution The original study was developed through a rapid community and stakeholder engagement process in 2020. Discussion with the Bradford Council Public Health team and the public through the Bradford COVID-19 Community Insights Group was undertaken in 2021 to identify important priorities for this follow up study.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Health Foundation Covid-19 Award (2301201) A Wellcome Trust infrastructure grant (WT101597MA) The National Institute for Health Research under its Applied Research Collaboration Yorkshire and Humber (NIHR200166) ActEarly UK Prevention Research Partnership Consortium (MR/S037527/1)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval granted by the Health Sciences Research Governance Committee, University of York (Amendment of HSRGC/2020/400/G)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, The University of Edinburgh, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos